Online Coach Certification .. Prospective Ph.D. Visits .. Scholarships ..  Jobs .. Newsletters .. Forms .. Override/Independent Study

Home
About KIN
News
Research/Outreach
Academics
Admissions
B.S. Handbook
M.S. Handbook
Ph.D. Handbook
G.A. Handbook
Faculty Handbook
Bylaws/Policies
Alumni/Friends
Awards
Directory
Student Orgs
Links
Give to KIN
Contact KIN

Ugrad Advising Appts
College of Education
MSU

Copyright ©
Michigan State University
 

Criteria for Rating Teaching:
Tenure-Stream Faculty

When evaluating the scholarly productivity component of teaching responsibility, reviewers should consider: (a) the significance of the teaching products; (b) whether products are submitted/published in refereed versus non-refereed publications; and (c) the quality and quantity of the teaching products. The Personnel Committee should also consider the extent to which an individual faculty member makes significant contributions to collaborative projects.

Criteria marked with a * represent expectations for persons seeking reappointment, tenure, and promotion.

Load assignment

Numeric
Value
Guidelines for evaluating productivity

+,0,-
bulletNumber of courses/credits matches teaching load
bulletSupervision of variable credit courses (excluding project, thesis, internship, dissertation)

Syllabus and course materials

Numeric
Value
Guidelines for evaluating productivity

0
bulletSyllabus does not meet minimum requirements set by the Code of Teaching Responsibility (e.g., course objectives, grading procedures, and office hours)

1
bulletSyllabus meets minimum requirements of the Code of Teaching Responsibility, but lacks other essential information (e.g., topical outlines, course procedures, course assignments)

2-4
bulletSyllabus meets requirements of the Code of Teaching Responsibility and includes other essential information (e.g., topical outlines, course procedures, course assignments)

4-7
bulletSyllabus meets requirements of the Code of Teaching Responsibility and includes supplementary enhancement materials (e.g., optional reading lists, unit objectives, pertinent handouts) and its organization is exemplary)*
bulletCourse materials provide evidence of effective implementation of the syllabus, especially the course objectives*
bulletEvidence of attempts to improve instruction is available (e.g., updated texts, reading materials, exams, innovations)*

SIRS ratings and student comments (emphasize Factors 1, 3, and 5)

Numeric
Value
Guidelines for evaluating productivity

1
bulletSIRS ratings are consistently below average

2-4
bulletSIRS ratings are consistently in the average range

4-7
bulletSIRS ratings are consistently in the above average or superior range*
bulletStudent comments support teaching effectiveness*
bulletStudent experiences are extended beyond the classroom into professional settings*

Scholarly productivity related to teaching

Numeric
Value
Guidelines for evaluating productivity

0
bulletNo evidence of professional growth is provided

1-2
bulletEvidence of professional growth is provided

2-4
bulletPapers have been accepted or presented at professional meetings
bulletPapers, chapters, or books have been submitted for publication
bulletPapers, chapters, or books have been accepted or published by lesser journals/publication firms
bulletInstructional media products have been accepted or published by lesser publication firms
bulletPapers or monographs are publicly available as internal publications

4-7
bulletPapers have been accepted or published by major refereed professional journals*
bulletChapters have been refereed and appear in books that have been accepted or published by major publishing firms*
bulletBooks have been accepted or published by major publishing firms*
bulletInstructional media products have been accepted or published by major publication firms*

Awards 

Numeric
Value
Guidelines for evaluating productivity

Bonus
bulletAwards for teaching*